If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jerusalem Post)   Russia fully supports UN sanctions against Iran. Well, except for these S-300 air-defense missiles that will be used to feed sick kids, or something   (jpost.com) divider line 53
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1606 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2010 at 11:41 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-10 10:45:55 AM
Gee, and who flipped a biatch when we were setting up missile defense in Poland?

You know, for safety.
 
2010-06-10 11:43:18 AM
Let Iran have them. Let them have some international dignity, and cut all this saber rattling.

Protecting Israel from the Iranian "threat" isn't worth destabilizing that whole region.
 
2010-06-10 11:44:22 AM
I think at this point, I would encourage Iran to get nuclear weapons and test it to show the world along with Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
 
2010-06-10 11:45:32 AM
one word for ALL nations,
selfish

/opps, my bad, the appropriate diplomatic phrase is "self-interest"
 
2010-06-10 11:46:16 AM
Israel can't really hold it against the Russians for trying to turn a buck from arms sales... or can they?
 
2010-06-10 11:46:30 AM
Sounds reasonable. You can't let your frothing-mad dog continuously threaten to blow up their reactors (again) and not expect them to want some level of defense against that threat.
 
2010-06-10 11:46:38 AM
you know who else sold missiles to the Iranians?
 
2010-06-10 11:47:12 AM
Will they actually takee possession of the missles or just photoshop them in a picture and save the money?
 
2010-06-10 11:48:17 AM
WON'T SOME ONE THINK OF THE POOR SICK CHILDREN!!!
 
2010-06-10 11:51:47 AM
It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.
 
2010-06-10 11:52:56 AM
rogue49: one word for ALL nations,
selfish

/opps, my bad, the appropriate diplomatic phrase is "self-interest"


Either is fine. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
2010-06-10 11:54:06 AM
We can still import hot Iranian women, right?
 
2010-06-10 11:54:24 AM
Obama is just waiting for them to deliver that missile system so he knows who's ASS to kick !
 
2010-06-10 11:54:34 AM
Poor innocent Iran getting picked on by the big bad bullies.

Poor poor Iran.
 
2010-06-10 11:56:00 AM
HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.
 
2010-06-10 11:57:02 AM
Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.
 
2010-06-10 11:58:03 AM
YoMammaObama: WON'T SOME ONE THINK OF THE POOR SICK CHILDREN!!!

I find it hard to make rational decisions about foreign policy when I'm turned on.
 
2010-06-10 11:58:09 AM
HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Funny that, because you would think Irans constant rhetoric of destroying that air forces entire country and wiping them off the map would make things alot calmer and rational.
 
2010-06-10 12:00:13 PM
My missle is bigger than yours.
 
2010-06-10 12:00:57 PM
I can't wait until MAD DOG Israel finally gets a much deserved nose bleed and that goes for all the AshkeNazies here supporting that MAD DOG.
 
2010-06-10 12:01:50 PM
Cold War II: UN-style

/wut?
 
2010-06-10 12:02:22 PM
rogue49: one word for ALL nations,
selfish

/opps, my bad, the appropriate diplomatic phrase is "self-interest"


I said just that in a recent thread, and no one acknowledged my brilliant insight. So here's to you, Mr. Fark Comment Getter-Right Guy.
 
2010-06-10 12:02:52 PM
Chuck Wagon: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.


Look at it from the Israeli viewpoint. We're talking about a country that is afraid of cement. Defensive missiles must terrify them. Israel makes our own home-grown Republican pants-shiatters look brave.
 
2010-06-10 12:03:38 PM
RockIsDead: Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.

B-b-but I am gonna kick ass...
 
2010-06-10 12:08:19 PM
RockIsDead: Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.

or "Bring it on"
 
2010-06-10 12:08:40 PM
This is truly a theater of the absurd. Just stop the sanctions against Iran, trade and the skyrocketing standard of living will do the rest.

Although Israel might not appreciate some local competition in the high tech sector.
 
2010-06-10 12:10:30 PM
Lt. Cheese Weasel: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Funny that, because you would think Irans constant rhetoric of destroying that air forces entire country and wiping them off the map would make things alot calmer and rational.


Yes, they must be simply terrified of mythical nukes.
 
2010-06-10 12:11:33 PM
palelizard: RockIsDead: Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.

B-b-but I am gonna kick ass...


and chew bubblegum?
 
2010-06-10 12:15:07 PM
Hung Like A Tic-Tac: palelizard: RockIsDead: Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.

B-b-but I am gonna kick ass...

and chew bubblegum?


No, I'm all out of gum
 
2010-06-10 12:16:33 PM
Chuck Wagon: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.


The SA-20 has anti-ballistic missile functionality. Accordingly (and indeed the very concerns raised by the Russians over our interceptors in Poland), this would constitute a significant threat to peace as they would erode the ability of both parties to ensure the mutual destruction of other.
 
2010-06-10 12:19:12 PM
... of the other. Yeah, it's early.
 
2010-06-10 12:21:03 PM
Syphilis_Smile: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: palelizard: RockIsDead: Meaningless feel-good token bullshiat, like saying you're gonna kick ass.

B-b-but I am gonna kick ass...

and chew bubblegum?

No, I'm all out of gum


I brought my own. It's not like having the gum is going to stop me, I'm here to do both. Anyone who is here to kick ass and chew bubble gum but didn't bring any gum is going to fail, and I don't give partial credit!
 
2010-06-10 12:27:55 PM
HotWingConspiracy: Yes, they must be simply terrified of mythical nukes.

Israel greatly benefits from the current situation of saying they don't have nukes with a wink and a nudge.
 
2010-06-10 12:34:49 PM
zOMG ANTI-SEMITISM!
 
2010-06-10 12:36:41 PM
Comrade438: Chuck Wagon: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.

The SA-20 has anti-ballistic missile functionality. Accordingly (and indeed the very concerns raised by the Russians over our interceptors in Poland), this would constitute a significant threat to peace as they would erode the ability of both parties to ensure the mutual destruction of other.


Israel doesn't claim to possess any WMDs. Israel can't legitimately claim that the system will be a counter to a weapon system that they deny they posess.
 
2010-06-10 12:46:22 PM
Comrade438: Chuck Wagon: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.



The SA-20 has anti-ballistic missile functionality. Accordingly (and indeed the very concerns raised by the Russians over our interceptors in Poland), this would constitute a significant threat to peace as they would erode the ability of both parties to ensure the mutual destruction of other.


Fark that noise. I want MY team to be able to kick the shiat out of THEIR team. I want Unilaterally Assured Destruction.
 
2010-06-10 12:51:50 PM
The SA-300 system systematically destroys the right of Americans to drop bombs on brown people. I blame Obama.
 
2010-06-10 12:53:45 PM
I miss the days when we knew of Russian weapons only through NATO designations, because it simplified the hell out of things.

S-300 has many, many variants and different capabilities. It's three friggin' decades old. I don't know whether to be amused, concerned or really angry.
 
2010-06-10 01:03:30 PM
stucka: I miss the days when we knew of Russian weapons only through NATO designations, because it simplified the hell out of things.

S-300 has many, many variants and different capabilities. It's three friggin' decades old. I don't know whether to be amused, concerned or really angry.


Isn't there a newer version that hasn't been tested that's suppose to be the absolute bombdiggity? Like, as in its stealth chasing, anti-missle, anti-aircraft, etc, but hasn't seen used in combat yet?

I think Russia was considering selling those to Iran, and Israel was going apeshiat over it.
 
2010-06-10 01:09:11 PM
Deacon Blue: Comrade438: Chuck Wagon: HotWingConspiracy: It's almost like there is a nation with a powerful air force that threatens Iran with "preemptive" strikes on a regular basis.

Not only that, what could they possibly use air defense missiles for, other than air defense? It's not like they can be used to threaten anybody. These are strictly defensive weapons.



The SA-20 has anti-ballistic missile functionality. Accordingly (and indeed the very concerns raised by the Russians over our interceptors in Poland), this would constitute a significant threat to peace as they would erode the ability of both parties to ensure the mutual destruction of other.

Fark that noise. I want MY team to be able to kick the shiat out of THEIR team. I want Unilaterally Assured Destruction.


That's what we have now. I'm not sure what Comrade438 is smoking right now, but if he thinks Israel and Iran are on equal terms with regards to their ability to damage the other he must be completely blitzed.
 
2010-06-10 01:14:53 PM
Antimatter: stucka: I miss the days when we knew of Russian weapons only through NATO designations, because it simplified the hell out of things.

S-300 has many, many variants and different capabilities. It's three friggin' decades old. I don't know whether to be amused, concerned or really angry.

Isn't there a newer version that hasn't been tested that's suppose to be the absolute bombdiggity? Like, as in its stealth chasing, anti-missle, anti-aircraft, etc, but hasn't seen used in combat yet?

I think Russia was considering selling those to Iran, and Israel was going apeshiat over it.


Like the Mig 25 Foxbat? Every decade or so there is another Russian "wonder weapon" that is supposed to be all billy and stuff. Tanks, aircraft, missiles, they cause a panic, and then reality comes and everyone realizes it is hype.

Something often lacking is indeed testing. Can have the coolest weapon in the world on paper, without testing it never works. the US tests a lot. We spend a lot of money doing it, but our stuff generally works.

Russians could have a wonder weapon, but somehow I am skeptical.
 
2010-06-10 01:19:30 PM
1)These are completely defensive weapons. Assuming the Iranians are gonna nefariously turn these into offensive weapons using scrap metal from it or some other bullshiat is the same thing as assuming that allowing them to have nuclear power means they'll make nuclear weapons. From a legal standpoint I want them held and bound to their NPT and IAEA and whatever other legal standards. On the other hand,if they had nuclear power it wouldn't really be a problem, even if they had a nuke, it'd just be a counterbalance to that other dangerous rogue nation("terrorist state" for the whole nation would be pushing it, although the IDF does like their brutality).
2)Russia has in fact frozen the deal you fear mongering hypocritical Zionist dumbass.
 
2010-06-10 01:21:54 PM
Antimatter:

Yeah, big differences in capabilities. Anti-aircraft? Anti-cruise missile? Anti-ballistic missile? Anti-stealth? Depends on the variant.

It's not quite as bad as saying something like, "The new Japanese ships will be equipped with the American-manufactured Standard Missile," but it's not really far off. Wikipedia says there's an order of magnitude in the missile ranges (47km to 400km) on the variants. Now, if you remember the area being a function of the radius, there's a 7200% difference between the amount of area the missiles can reach.

Come to think of it, it probably *is* worse than just saying "Standard Missile."
 
2010-06-10 01:25:57 PM
m2313: 1)These are completely defensive weapons. Assuming the Iranians are gonna nefariously turn these into offensive weapons using scrap metal from it or some other bullshiat is the same thing as assuming that allowing them to have nuclear power means they'll make nuclear weapons. From a legal standpoint I want them held and bound to their NPT and IAEA and whatever other legal standards. On the other hand,if they had nuclear power it wouldn't really be a problem, even if they had a nuke, it'd just be a counterbalance to that other dangerous rogue nation("terrorist state" for the whole nation would be pushing it, although the IDF does like their brutality).
2)Russia has in fact frozen the deal you fear mongering hypocritical Zionist dumbass.




Iran converted HAWK missiles to offensive weapons. They have a history if indigenous weapons manufacture by using foreign systems. The S300 systems would be a big boost to thier capability to guide thier many other midrange ground to ground missiles.

Prescident is there, where they took a 'defensive' weapon and converted it to a 'offensive' one.

Who else did with s300 versions ?

China (S-300s would incorporate the advanced technology into its own offensive missiles, such as the CSS-6 (DF-15/M-9) and the CSS-7 (DF-11/M-11), which in turn would be proliferated on down the line.

...and Syria.
 
2010-06-10 01:29:42 PM
Thunderpipes: Like the Mig 25 Foxbat? Every decade or so there is another Russian "wonder weapon" that is supposed to be all billy and stuff. Tanks, aircraft, missiles, they cause a panic, and then reality comes and everyone realizes it is hype.

Foxbat was semi-hype. IT could go really fast, but not with weapons, and not with engines lasting very long. (Was it the reconnaissance version that had engines that had to be thrown out after 100 hours or so?)

Some Soviet stuff is pointless, like the Shkval. But the Sunburn, which has been upgraded considerably since its introduction, is an anti-ship missile that is *very* difficult to defend against; it makes the American counterpart look almost as threatening as a toddler on a tricycle. The SS-19, with the possibility of sharing information from a ballistic missile while the others cruise? Thank God we almost certainly won't have to find out about that.

The MiG-29 infrared search and track? Vastly ahead of its time.

Now, remember the Soviets said numbers had a quality all their own, and that's true to some extent. But the quality gap was also narrowing. The qualitative gap between, say, a first-gen F-15 and a MiG-23 is huge, whereas a MiG-29 or Su-27 vs. an F-15C is going to be a much closer fight.

Also remember the Soviets didn't necessarily supply the right hardware to the "field testers" or said testers didn't buy the right stuff. As I understand it in 1991, for example, the T-72s the Iraqis were using had great armor and most of the upgrades, but the Iraqis didn't buy thermal sights. The real killer, though, was the ammunition; I've read that the Iraqi war shots were of a lower quality than the American *practice* rounds. So you have to realize you're not necessarily dealing with apples and apples in the field tests. Then there's issues of training, initiative, command and control, etc., which are harder to evaluate but are incredibly important.
 
2010-06-10 01:37:08 PM
We're on a countdown to the Samson Option.
 
2010-06-10 02:08:45 PM
Thunderpipes: Antimatter: stucka: I miss the days when we knew of Russian weapons only through NATO designations, because it simplified the hell out of things.

S-300 has many, many variants and different capabilities. It's three friggin' decades old. I don't know whether to be amused, concerned or really angry.

Isn't there a newer version that hasn't been tested that's suppose to be the absolute bombdiggity? Like, as in its stealth chasing, anti-missle, anti-aircraft, etc, but hasn't seen used in combat yet?

I think Russia was considering selling those to Iran, and Israel was going apeshiat over it.

Like the Mig 25 Foxbat? Every decade or so there is another Russian "wonder weapon" that is supposed to be all billy and stuff. Tanks, aircraft, missiles, they cause a panic, and then reality comes and everyone realizes it is hype.

Something often lacking is indeed testing. Can have the coolest weapon in the world on paper, without testing it never works. the US tests a lot. We spend a lot of money doing it, but our stuff generally works.

Russians could have a wonder weapon, but somehow I am skeptical.


I was thinking of the S-400 SAM system. Iran has expressed interest in buying the system.
 
2010-06-10 02:10:34 PM
Why would anyone have an issue with them being able to defend themselves? A defensive weapon such as this cannot be used offensively.
 
2010-06-10 02:11:17 PM
US Guy to Russian Missle Guy:
Those are nice missiles you're sending to Iran.
You know what would make them nicer?
If each one had this microchip in the guidance system.
Sorry to make you open each one up.
Here's $15M for your trouble.
 
2010-06-10 02:38:55 PM
stucka: Thunderpipes: Like the Mig 25 Foxbat? Every decade or so there is another Russian "wonder weapon" that is supposed to be all billy and stuff. Tanks, aircraft, missiles, they cause a panic, and then reality comes and everyone realizes it is hype.

Foxbat was semi-hype. IT could go really fast, but not with weapons, and not with engines lasting very long. (Was it the reconnaissance version that had engines that had to be thrown out after 100 hours or so?)

Some Soviet stuff is pointless, like the Shkval. But the Sunburn, which has been upgraded considerably since its introduction, is an anti-ship missile that is *very* difficult to defend against; it makes the American counterpart look almost as threatening as a toddler on a tricycle. The SS-19, with the possibility of sharing information from a ballistic missile while the others cruise? Thank God we almost certainly won't have to find out about that.

The MiG-29 infrared search and track? Vastly ahead of its time.

Now, remember the Soviets said numbers had a quality all their own, and that's true to some extent. But the quality gap was also narrowing. The qualitative gap between, say, a first-gen F-15 and a MiG-23 is huge, whereas a MiG-29 or Su-27 vs. an F-15C is going to be a much closer fight.

Also remember the Soviets didn't necessarily supply the right hardware to the "field testers" or said testers didn't buy the right stuff. As I understand it in 1991, for example, the T-72s the Iraqis were using had great armor and most of the upgrades, but the Iraqis didn't buy thermal sights. The real killer, though, was the ammunition; I've read that the Iraqi war shots were of a lower quality than the American *practice* rounds. So you have to realize you're not necessarily dealing with apples and apples in the field tests. Then there's issues of training, initiative, command and control, etc., which are harder to evaluate but are incredibly important.


Nice post. Brought up a huge point I didn't mention, training. I love the Mig-29, it had serious potential. The Ukrainian Mig-29 team came to Burlington years ago for an airshow, it was awesome. If the US had used that aircraft, it probably would have a record similar to the F-15, that is, never defeated in air to air combat.

The Russians make good stuff, but without serious testing, training, maintenance and upgrades, even a great weapon like the Mig-29 will just be a target. I have serious doubts as to Iran being able to be competent in any area. It's like giving a super computer to a retarded kid.

Compare that to Israel, who takes our aircraft and other vehicles and actually improves them with their own technology, and you see why I really hope Iran gets uppity and starts something with them.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report